Hold Congress Accountable

About FreedomConnector

Find activists, groups, and events right in your own neighborhood. Join FreedomConnector to get involved and learn more about key issues threatening our economic freedom. Whether you’re looking for like-minded people, trying to boost your existing group’s impact, or simply trying to stay up on current events, FreedomConnector is the place to start. See what’s happening in your state today!

Search FreedomWorks

Resources

Blog

The Cost of the Libyan War

A government with moral and legal authority promulgates written rules and universally, impartially and uniformly enforces the rules, which provides a predictable and stable legal order on which to base economic and personal decisions. The law prevails, not the proclamation or arbitrary decision of a ruler, government bureaucrat, the enforcer (e.g., policeman) or judge.

Only President Obama has authorized the Libyan War, which is becoming very expensive. It's estimated to cost two million dollars per day, and America hs the greatest participation and expense, according to the Financial Times.

Although it is working under Nato, the US is by far the largest contributor to operation Unified Protector. As of mid-May it was conducting 70 per cent of reconnaissance missions, over 75 per cent of refuelling flights and 27 per cent of all air sorties.

The US has about 75 aircraft, including drones, involved in the operations and since the end of March has conducted about 2,600 aircraft sorties and about 600 combat sorties. In addition the US military can call on a number of naval assets in the Mediterranean.

As well as its contribution to the Nato operation, US spending on Libya includes its twelve day operation Odyssey Dawn that took place before Nato took over.

In total the US military has fired about 228 missiles as of mid-May. For comparison the US Navy plans to buy 196 or so missiles this year for about $300m or about $1.5m each, according to US budget documents.

Additionally, President Obama has claimed recently that this action is now non-kinetic. Therefore, he does not need to comply with the War Powers Act, which limits hostile actions to emergencies and 60 days before Congressional approval is required.

The independent action and obfuscation is wrong and unethical. Even worse is government's contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. President Obama has disrespected and insulted the plain words and the intent of the Constitution of the United States.

Our Founders feared the abuse of governmental power. Our Founders studied history, especially Greek, Roman and English history, and observed that governmental power was often evilly exploited. Thus, the Constitution of the United States decrees that no single person should have the power to declare war. It also vests that power to Congress, and Congress has not authorized this war.

A magnificent America asset is our adherence to the rule of law. Written rules, universally applied and enforced, protect people and their property. The guarantee of the rule of law allows everyone to confidently exchange ideas, goods and services. Americans and the people of the world trust America’s stable and predictable legal order. Pursuant to written and transparent rules, America strives to treat everyone equally under the law. This is the reason the dollar is the world’s currency, and Americans and foreigners invest in American bonds, equities and land. America is exceptional and the strongest country in the world because America honors and adheres to the rule of law.

Reprehensibly, President Obama has unilaterally directed the bombing of Libya, which will cost billions. This is wrong, but the egregious wrong is his proclamation to the world, that this President and America do not follow their own rules.

Every violation of America’s duly promulgated written rules, weakens everyone’s respect and expectation for a stable and predicable legal order. President Obama and Congress have repeatedly violated the rules they have sworn to uphold, thus eroding confidence and respect for protection under the law – America’s greatest asset and contribution to human freedom.

Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court effectively scratched the line “for public use” from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which allows the government to take and repurpose private property. The 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London said that property may be taken from one private owner and given to another private owner if it will generate more revenue for the city.

On June 29 President Obama published a blog on Huffington Post announcing his “plan to extend overtime protections to nearly 5 million workers in 2016, covering all salaried workers making up to about $50,400 next year.”

The Supreme Court has taken an active role in redefining, rather than simply interpreting, our country’s laws. Two clear examples of this can be seen in the two ObamaCare opinions written by Chief Justice Roberts, NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell. Whether it is calling a penalty a tax, or saying an exchange established by Kathleen Sebelius was established by the states, the Supreme Court is playing an active role in changing legislation.

Many Americans are eagerly (and nervously) awaiting the King v. Burwell decision, which is expected to come at the end of the month. The court case will determine whether ObamaCare, which looks to be falling apart independently of legal intervention, is illegally providing subsidies to those enrolled in the exchange.

Normally to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must establish standing. There are three requirements for establishing standing: (1) an injury in fact, (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and (3) the injury would be redressed by a favorable court ruling.

The Necessary and Proper Clause is often called the “Elastic Clause” because it is believed to give Congress “implied powers” that government is assumed to possess without being mentioned in the Constitution. There is a problem with this view: a government that is able to expand its power through an “Elastic Clause” is more likely to abuse its power.

It has been assumed that once the Supreme Court issues a decision, the other courts in this country are bound to follow the decision for all future cases that fall within the announced rule. However, it can be argued that in most circumstances, neither the Constitution nor federal law requires other courts to follow the Supreme Court. Indeed, it has been the Supreme Court itself that has demanded that their decision be binding on future cases. This seems to be the type of usurpation of power is the type our Founders detested and the Constitution was meant to prohibit.